I gave my proposal to come up with the money at the top of this page. It would generate a LOT more money than a tax on tabacco and would also put less strain on us. It's actually a LOT better fix and the children have the money for their insurance... Plus the money could be provided a lot faster than waiting on us to spend millions of dollars on smokes...
I gave my proposal to come up with the money at the top of this page. It would generate a LOT more money than a tax on tabacco and would also put less strain on us. It's actually a LOT better fix and the children have the money for their insurance... Plus the money could be provided a lot faster than waiting on us to spend millions of dollars on smokes...
I would also like to add that this is the kind of reaction these bleeding hearts want to get out of us. They want to spout off crap about how "It's for the poor children!" so hopefully emotion will over-ride reason and logic. If you really take a minute to step back and look at this, there are MUCH better ways to get the money without raising taxes and putting more of a burden on anyone.
Could fund anything we wanted with the pissed away money we spend on "friendly countries" , that could care less about the USA
I definately think that we need to take care of ourselves before we can take care of anybody else. I don't see those countries that we have given billions to offering to give us anything. My solution is a little harsh but I think we should close our borders and forget about other peoples wars. If they want to blow themselves up, that is their free will. Now, don't get me wrong I don;t want to see people get killed especially when it comes to religion but as you pointed out these people could care less about us except when they need something from us. They would be perfectly content taking our money and resources and then seeing us fry as they become stronger. If they would start paying us back the money that we have lent them then there would be no need for these types of programs, at least for the next few years minimum. On the other hand, if Drs bills weren't so outragous then healthcare wouldn't be as much of an issue.
I actually I lie I do want to continue with my point. You really want to solve the healthcare issue. Make it more affordable. You know how you do that? Easy. Limit liability. There should be a concrete method of determining what a life is worth. Actuaries should be deciding what a persons right arm is worth based fairly upon Stats and math, not upon a lawyer in a courtroom persuading a jury that one mans arm is worth $10,000. While another jury decides that they don't like this doctor that cost this man his arm so we're going to stick it to him and award $10 million and end up spending thousands in our tax dollars on the appeal process.
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
I agree with you 100% Luko. I beleive we are obligated as well. However that obligation should not be enforced by the federal government.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it (and if we're saying that, are we refering exlusively to the Bill of Rights)? Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant? Those things are within our grasp, you know. There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it (and if we're saying that, are we refering exlusively to the Bill of Rights)? Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant? Those things are within our grasp, you know. There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
IMO there is no role for the government in this. NONE. There are plenty of charities and individuals that can make this happen much more efficiently.
Why does it have to be a "right" in order for you to agree that everybody should have access to it...?
if everyone has equal access to it then it IS a right by definition.
Luko:
Really, you're not interested in making sure a kid has a full stomach? Or a life-saving heart transplant?
I AM interested in those things. I have done those things for myself and i expect everyone to work hard as well. I also dont want people to mooch off of me by federal mandate. If i give to charity (and i do) thats one thing, but a government mandate for me to buy food for people that arent as successful as myself? i have a problem with that.
Luko:
There has to be some role for government to help protect the most vulnerable subset of the population.
no there doesnt. maybe people should try personal responsibility. Government is not the solution; it is the problem.
I just said how we can keep the program that is providing for children that truely need assistance with healthcare and not raise taxes. It would be the most efficient way to provide the money. On the other end of the deal is that you would have to do a lot of checking into who does receive this assistance. If the parents aren't working because they are lazy, are addicted to some sort of chemical, or are just neglegting the child, then remove them from the home. If you cut out 50% of the crap we spend tax dollars on there would be MORE than enough money to keep and expand this program without one extra cent out of our pockets. Why can't you agree that would be a good solution?
Ouch, just twisted my ankle coming down off my pedastal. I'll give it rest. Just trust me when I say, my feelings on the federal government came be summed up as "necessary evil." I just feel very strongly that there are certain things we're obligated (no they are not federally protect "rights") as decent human beings to do. I think making sure our children have a home, food and health care are some of those things. WWJD!
I agree with you 100% Luko. I beleive we are obligated as well. However that obligation should not be enforced by the federal government.
I see your point Luko, but what makes children more important than everyone else? I like the idea of a unified medical program, call it socialism or what-have you but it's a good idea. Insurance companies are out of hand and if that can be put under control then I'm fine with that but the alternative would be to have a federal program. Though taxing isn't the way to pay for it. Building up our manufacturing is! Though this schip program is a socialist program just like welfare and a lot of others. And I'm fine with these programs, minus the fact that the govt (state too) pays for these by raising taxes on items and property. It's just wrong and needs to be fixed. But I say if there is a program for children then it should be for all and NO if your are illegally here then you need to leave or get citizenship and pay taxes like everyone else. I am not a fan of free-bee's and it's not a good thing as people then become lazy and un-productive. I see this happening a lot, and anyone who has a job that works on the interior of people's home/apartments knows what I'm talking about (depending on the area). This program might as well be summed up as welfare since most of these people would normally be on it in the first place. My problem isn't just with the .40 cent cigar tax it's with tax in general, it should not be used so much and for such programs that certain people think "oh, lets tax it".
Comments